C-218/89

4. The Bundesfinanzhof refers to the wording at issue and general linguistic usage 2. We were told that the Bundesfinanzhof and doubts whether classification under has to decide whether six customs tariff Heading 9030 is appropriate since only rulings are correct. The instruments in instruments intended for measuring and question carry out measurements of elec­ indicating the value of the measured trical quantities as an essential process in quantity serve for purposes of measurement. chromatography but do not merely indicate the measurements of these quantities. Chro­ matography, the Commission has explained, is a method of chemical analysis for deter­ mining selected components of a mixture of 5. The plaintiff in the main proceedings has substances. This is done by means of a referred to its arguments before the Bundes­ colour picture (chromatogram) that finanzhof. It there contended that the furnishes quantitative and qualitative data apparatus in question was not suitable for regarding the composition of a substance; the measurement of an electrical quantity the instrument operates by recording (thus which is used merely to transfer the physical measuring) the quantity of incoming elec­ data which are actually of interest. A trical signals and comparing them with telephone, for example, also uses electrical memorized values (programmes) and thus current for the transmission of acoustic evaluating them. The last mentioned process signals but nobody would describe a thus goes beyond mere indication of a telephone as an instrument for measuring measured value. electrical voltage. If the defendant's view were followed, in principle in every trans­ mission of data by electrical or electro­ magnetic means, the receiver would be an instrument for measuring an electrical 3. The defendant Oberfinanzdirektion quantity. That view is plainly divorced from considers that these instruments should be reality. classified under subheading 9030 81 90 of the Combined Nomenclature. ' That tariff

7. However, the Commission itself has 10. As we have already seen, the operation recognized that that view is no longer of the instruments in question is such that tenable in the light of the judgment of the electrical signals are measured by analysis 4 Court of Justice in Case 19 / 88 . In that apparatus, those signals are converted into judgment on the interpretation of tariff digital signals and then compared with subheading 90.28 A of the Common pre-programmed data. The electrical Customs Tariff it was ruled that apparatus measurements are not, however, displayed for measuring electrical quantities includes but are used for other purposes. It cannot only apparatus which has the function of therefore be held that those instruments are carrying out such measurements but not apparatus for measuring electrical quantities apparatus which effects such measurement falling under Heading 9030 of the only for the purpose of checking electronic Combined Nomenclature. components.

8. On the basis of that judgment the goods imported in this case must be held not to be 11. Similarly, as the Commission stated, it instruments for checking electrical quan­ cannot be held that they were intended for tities. checking electrical quantities precisely because their function was not to check the 2 — OJ 1986 C 102, p. 8. existence of electrical quantities and 3 — Regulations (EEC) Nos 2054/83 of 17 August 1983 (OJ 1983 L 224, p. 4) and 2334/83 of 26 July 1983 (OJ 1983 determine their characteristics. L 202, p. 7). 4 — Case 19/88 1CT'and Olheri v Direction général des douanes el droits indirects de Roissy [1989J ECR 577 (summary 5 — Regulation (EEC) No 97/69 of the Council of 16 January publication). 1969 (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 12).